Medical Officer of Health Municipal Board vs Vir Singh

K.K. Chaubey, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21-1-1979 of Sri S.K. Jain VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad by which he allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings on account of being void ab-initio in the absence of a valid sanction u/s 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act).

The case of the prosecution was that on 14-4-1973 at about 11 A.M., the Food Inspector Sri B. P. Sharma found the Respondent Singh selling she-buffaloe milk. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and took sample of the milk in accordance with the rules. The sample was seat for analysis and the Public Analyst reported that the sample was deficient by 55 percent in fat. It was also deficient by 44 percent in non-fatty solids. Accordingly it was reported to be adulterated.

The complaint was filed by Medical Officer of Health, Nagar Palika, Amroha on which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate.

The Respondent was charged u/s 7/16 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty.

The complainant examined Sri B.P. Sharma, Food Inspector as PW1 and Kalloo Singh, PW2.

The Respondent-accused in his statement before the court below denied the story of prosecution including the taking of sample and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. He also examined Meharban Ahmad in defence.

The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments came to the conclusion that the case was proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the Respondent. He, therefore, convicted him u/s 7/16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Aggrieved by that judgment and order, the Respondent filed Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1978, which was allowed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad on 31-1-1979. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered only one point. Relying on a ruling of this Court, he came to the finding that the consent given u/s 20 of the Act was not a valid one with the result that the entire proceedings were void ab-initio. On this finding alone he allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings for want of valid sanction. He, however, observed that it was open to the prosecuting agency to prosecute the accused in accordance with law. Aggrieved by that judgment and order, this criminal appeal has been filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the State. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent Vir Singh. Hence, I had no opportunity of hearing any one on his behalf. I have carefully gone through the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently argued that in this case, the complaint was filed by the Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Board, Amroha and so no sanction was required because he is himself the sanctioning authority. All the Municipal Officers of Health have been authorised by the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide notification No. 10305/XVI (PH)-46l-52 dated 16--12-1955 to institute or to give written consent for instituting prosecution under the Act within the municipal areas in their respective jurisdiction. This authority appears to have been given in accordance with Section 20 of the Act. On the basis of this authority, the municipal Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Board, Amroha was competent to institute himself or to give written consent for instituting prosecution u/s 20 of the Act. No doubt, in this case, on the report of the Public Analyst the Medical Officer of Health had noted "prosecution sanctioned" but the complaint (Ext. Ka 6) was filed and signed by the Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Board, Amroha, himself. The order regarding sanction of prosecution on the report of Public Analyst is redundant in view of the fact that the Medical Officer of Health is complainant himself. In such case there was no question of according any sanction to any body or giving consent u/s 20 of the Act. Therefore, the observation of the court below that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind in giving sanction is not correct. In this connection I may refer Nanhey v. State of U.P. 1981 ACR 330, in which it has been observed that "In the instant case, the complaint was filed by Nagar Swasthya Adhikari and, therefore, there was no question of according any sanction to any one. Hence no question arises as to whether the concerned authority had applied its mind while granting sanction for launching prosecution against the applicant."

In view of the above, no sanction was required for filing complaint in this case Hence, the question of application of mind by the authority granting sanction for launching prosecution does not arise. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be maintained. However, in this case, criminal appeal No. 173 of 1976 was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the technical ground of sanction having not properly been given. No other points were considered. Hence, the appeal has to be remanded to the court below for re-hearing on merits in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the court below are set aside. The appeal is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad who will dispose it of in accordance with law either himself or transfer it to some other Additional Sessions Judge of competent jurisdiction. The appeal has become very old and effort should be made to dispose it of within three months from the receipt of record.